California's SB 447 Expires: Survival Damages No Longer Available

As of January 1, 2026, California families can no longer recover damages for a loved one’s pain and suffering before death. SB 447, the law that temporarily allowed these survival damages, has expired after the legislature failed to renew it.

The History of SB 447

For decades, California law contained what many considered an unjust loophole: when someone died from their injuries, their estate could not recover damages for the pain and suffering they experienced before death. This meant that a tortfeasor—whether a negligent driver, a corporation selling a defective product, or a police officer using excessive force—faced less legal accountability if their victim died than if the victim survived.

In 2021, State Senator John Laird introduced SB 447 to address this inequity. The bill amended California’s Code of Civil Procedure to allow survival actions to include damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, and disfigurement. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law, and it took effect on January 1, 2022.

The legislation was a landmark victory for civil rights advocates, personal injury attorneys, and families who had long argued that a victim’s suffering should not be erased simply because they ultimately succumbed to their injuries. For nearly four years, California joined the majority of American states in recognizing this fundamental principle of accountability.

The Sunset Clause and Legislative Inaction

SB 447 was not passed as permanent law. Instead, the bill included a sunset provision requiring the legislature to affirmatively renew it by January 1, 2026. Without explicit legislative action to extend or make the law permanent, it would automatically expire.

That renewal never came. Despite advocacy efforts from plaintiffs’ attorneys, civil rights organizations, and victims’ families, the California legislature failed to act before the deadline. As of January 1, 2026, SB 447 has expired, and California law has reverted to its previous state—barring recovery of non-economic damages in survival actions.

The reasons for legislative inaction are complex. Opposition from insurance companies, municipalities facing police misconduct lawsuits, and defense-oriented lobbying groups created significant headwinds. In the end, the bill simply never received the votes needed for renewal.

The Problem With Barring Survival Damages

The expiration of SB 447 creates a legal framework that many consider morally indefensible. To understand why, consider what happens under current California law:

A person is shot by police during an encounter. They survive the initial shooting but suffer catastrophic injuries. Over the following year, they endure multiple surgeries, infections, and unrelenting pain. They remain conscious throughout—fully aware of their deteriorating condition. After twelve months of documented suffering witnessed by doctors, nurses, and family members, they die from their injuries.

Under California’s current law, that entire year of suffering has zero compensable value. The estate can recover medical bills and lost wages, but the lived experience of pain counts for nothing in court. The officers who caused this harm receive what legal scholars call a “death windfall”—their victim’s death actually reduces their legal liability.

This creates a perverse incentive structure. Causing injuries severe enough to kill someone results in less financial exposure than causing injuries that allow the victim to survive and testify about their experience. The law effectively rewards the worst outcomes.

Beyond the moral problem, this approach puts California in the minority of American jurisdictions. Most states recognize a straightforward principle: if you cause someone pain and suffering, you’re liable for that harm whether they live or die. The severity of injury shouldn’t erase accountability.

The impact extends far beyond police misconduct cases. Medical malpractice, product liability, nursing home abuse, and workplace accidents are all affected. When a defective product causes months of agony before death, or when medical negligence leads to prolonged suffering, California law now treats that pain as legally irrelevant.

For families, this creates additional trauma. They must sit in courtrooms where the legal system essentially tells them their loved one’s final months of suffering don’t matter—that only the economic losses count.

What Comes Next

Civil rights attorneys and plaintiffs’ advocates are already mobilizing to push for new legislation in the 2026 session. Until then, cases filed on or after January 1, 2026 must be structured around wrongful death theories focusing on survivors’ losses rather than the victim’s own experience.

The expiration of SB 447 is not merely a technical change in damages calculations. It represents a policy choice that prioritizes protecting wrongdoers over acknowledging victims’ suffering. Until the legislature acts to restore this reform, California families will face a legal system that treats their loved ones’ final agony as if it never happened.